William Penn, the Englishman who invented the European Parliament

Cedant arma togae (Let arms yield to the toga!) is written in
the epigraph to the Project. It took nearly three centuries to materialize, and
in June 1979, the first European Parliament elected directly by the citizens
was implemented.

Share this

Read more!

Get our weekly email

Enter your email address

The
UK Independent Party will send 24 MEPs to the European Parliament in
Strasbourg. It will be one of the largest national delegations, larger not only
than that of the Tories and of Labour, but also of many important European
political parties such as the French Socialists. As the UK single largest
Parliamentary group, they will amplify the view that Britain is the homeland of
Eurosceptics. It is seldom remembered, however, that the first proposal for
European Parliament is more than three centuries old, and is due to a great
English social reformer, the Quaker William Penn.

William
Penn was granted ownership by Charles II, of a vast territory south of New York
in 1681. His father, Admiral William Penn, Sr., had been a valuable servant of
the king, and the king celebrated his memory by baptizing those possessions
Pennsylvania, ‘Penn's woods’. In the intent of William, Jr., it would be a refuge
not only for the followers of his confession persecuted in Britain, but for all
oppressed religious minorities in Europe. Penn had gone over there, laying the
foundation for a harmonious coexistence also with the native peoples.

Yet,
European politics was jeopardizing his futuristic project. The war between
France and the League of Augsburg of 1689 would have required more taxes and
more soldiers from the settlers. Given the pacifist beliefs of the Quakers,
there was the distinct risk that conflict with the crown would flare up with unpredictable
consequences.

Penn
was also surprised that the Netherlands was participating in the conflict. He
was a sincere admirer of the federal experiment attempted in Seven United
Provinces, and watched with great hope the birth and development of the new
state in the middle of Europe, which tolerated different religions and
valorised commercial enterprise.

Was
it possible to solve the problem at the very roots, by containing and perhaps
even abolishing wars? Experience showed that an English Parliament was the most
effective method of limiting the power of the sovereign and giving voice to the
other powers. And so, in the middle of a conflict that would last more than a
decade, Penn outlines a visionary project: to create a new European Parliament.

Penn
was not the first thinker to support the cause of peace. Almost two centuries
before, Erasmus of Rotterdam had listed with ardour the damage caused by the
war and, conversely, the benefits that could be achieved with peace.

Penn
took a major step forward being not only in favour of peace, but also searching
out ways of resolving conflicts through nonviolent means. Although intertwined
with bloody dynastic events, the English Parliament had frequently offered a
counterweight to sovereign power. If parliamentary control had worked in
Britain and promised to do so in the newborn federative system of the
Netherlands, why could it not work for the whole of Europe?

So
it was that in 1693 William Penn wrote the short and elegant Essay Towards the Present and Future Peace
of Europeby the Establishment of a
European Parliament, in which he expressed the hope that both disputes
between sovereigns, and those between the rulers and their subjects, might be resolved
on the basis not of force but of justice. Cedant
arma togae (Let arms yield to the toga!) is written in the epigraph to the
Project.

To
do this it was necessary to form an assembly made up of authoritative people,
that it should be convened regularly, listen to all complaints and eventually
issue a verdict inspired by the principles of justice. Penn held a radical
belief in dialogue as a means of mutual understanding; a "parliament",
as confirmed by the etymology of the word (from “parlare”, to speak), is the
institutional expression of this belief.

He
insists not only on freedom of speech, but also the obligation to listen to the
arguments of others in Parliament:

“every
soveraignty should be present under great penalties, and that none leave the
session without leave, till all be finished”.

Penn
never doubted that such authority would be considered wise and understanding,
so suggested that Parliament use only one language: Latin or French.

Unlike
other proposals of the modern era, Penn does not entrust to the ruling
dynasties the task of settling disputes. He does not propose to strengthen the
traditional diplomatic activity in the course of several centuries conducting
summits and conclaves in which kings, generals and ambassadors treated
secretly.

For
him, it is necessary that the people called upon to decide on any given dispute
act independently and not as representatives of a state. Hence the proposal to
appoint a number of members for each country corresponds to their respective
political and economic importance. The deputies were to be elected on the basis
of "yearly value" of the territories, providing to larger and more
powerful ones a corresponding amount of MPs.

Penn
goes even further, and imagines a hypothetical Parliament with 90 members, of
which 12 are from the Empire of Germany, 10 from France and Spain, respectively,
8 from Italy, 6 from England, and so on. When it comes to the smaller states,
Penn even thinks it possible to form common constituencies, jointly appointing a
deputy. To scroll through the allocation of seats, we see that Penn anticipates
one of the characteristics of today's European Parliament, ensuring to smaller
states a number of deputies in greater proportion, conscious of the fact that
small powers, because small, are generally more inclined to the peaceful
settlement of disputes.

What
guarantees that individual MPs will vote according to their own sense of
fairness rather than the interests of the country they come from? Penn suggests
two gimmicks. The first is how to vote:

“the
question for a vote should be by [secret]
ballot, after the prudent and commendable method of the Venetians. Which
in a great degree, prevents the ill effects of corruption”.

The
second is to require a qualified majority, which would make it more difficult
to act in a manner contrary to justice.

Although
Members will be selected for countries, Penn does not think that they should
act in defence of their country. Secret ballot allows the MPs of the same
country to vote in opposite ways.

He suggests dividing the members of parliament
into groups of 10, so that each group could contribute a common view to the
plenary debates. Given the distribution of seats across countries, each
group would have been composed by MEPs of different nations. Perhaps Penn was
already imagining European Parliamentary political groups brought together on
the grounds of affinities among the national members. He even suggested that
each of the groups should elect a President (today at the European Parliament
these are called Chairpersons). The President had the competence of deciding
which member of his political group should talk on individual issues and also
preparing the minutes of the debates.

What
powers would be enjoyed by this Parliament? What guarantee is there that the
sovereign would comply with its resolutions? This is still the most important
problem that has resisted advance in today's international organizations. How can
an institution with no powers of its own, no matter how authoritative, see that
its decisions are respected? Penn argues that,

“if
any of the soveraignties that constitute these imperial states, shall refuse to
submit their claim or pretensions to them, all the other soveraignties, united as
one strength, shall compel the submission and performance of the sentence, with
damages to the suffering party”.

Power
founded ultimately on consent and the authority of Parliament itself.

Penn’s
project is not limited to Christian Europe, but aims to be as inclusive as
possible:

"
if the Turks and Muscovites are taken in, as seems but fit and just, they will
make ten a piece more."

His
Europe is thus not a Christian but a political space, to the extent that the powers
at the edge of the continent, such as Russia and the Ottoman Empire, could
obtain a number of MPs equal to the principal kingdoms of Europe, France and
Spain.

It
took nearly three centuries for the vision of Penn to materialize, and in June
1979 the first European Parliament elected directly by the citizens was
implemented. That Parliament had only nine member states, and all from western
Europe. Some progress has been made if the European Parliament is elected today
by citizens of 28 countries. It is certainly a pity that more than half of all
European citizens decided not to vote, in spite of the fact that the Parliament
is now increasing its competences. And for sure, William Penn would have
regretted the fact that in his own country nearly two thirds of his fellow
citizens have turned their back on his dream.

A map of Europe in the 1690's

The distribution of seats in the William Penn
proposal

“Empire of Germany to send Twelve; France, Ten;
Spain, Ten; Italy, which comes to France, Eight; England, Six; Portugal, Three;
Sweedland, Four; Denmark, Three; Poland, Four; Venice, Three; the Seven
Provinces, Four; The Thirteen Cantons, and little Neighbouring Soveraignties,
Two; Dukedoms of Holstein and Courland, One: And if the Turks and Muscovites
are taken in, as seems but fit and just, they will make Ten a Piece more.”

Empire
of Germany 12

France
10

Spain
10

Italy
8

England
6

Portugal
3

Sweedlan
4

Denmark
3

Poland 4

Venice 3

Seven
Provinces (Lower Countries) 4

The
Thirteen Cantons, and little Neighbouring Soveraignties 2

Dukedoms
of Holstein and Courland 1

Turks
10

Muscovites
(Russia) 10

The pioneers of the European Parliament

1710
– The Quaker John Bellers resumes the project by William Penn before the Peace
of Utrecht in the essay Some Reasons for
a European State. Bellers envisages a Parliament with 100 MPs, each elected
in a different European constituency. This could be done by subdividing
European states into provinces and electing common deputies across border.

1814
– While the Congress of Vienna is already under way, and Napoleon exiled to
Elba Island, Claude-Henri de Saint-Simon published in Paris the essay, The Reorganization of the European Community,
which suggests a European Parliament elected based on a deputy for every
million inhabitants. Saint-Simon notes that, after the defeat of Napoleon,
France has adopted a parliamentary system modelled on that of Great Britain.
Nothing, he says, prevents the two countries from joining together in a common
parliament, to be potentially opened up to all Europeans turning to a representative
democracy.

1941
– It must wait for the outbreak of the Second World War to see reaffirmed the
idea of a European federation. In 1941, Altiero Spinelli and Ernesto Rossi,
with the collaboration of Eugenio Colorni, articulated the hope for a united
and federal Europe, in the Ventotene
Manifesto, which takes its name from the island on which they were both confined
by the fascist regime.

Related

This article is published under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence. If you have any
queries about republishing please
contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.